Johnny Skeptic

Message to CJD: I see that you conveniently avoided replying to my post #32. I am not surprised. I conceded for the sake of argument that Jesus "did" rise from the dead and still demolished your arguments. Philosophy trumps apologetics hands down, and obviously you are well aware that your philosophical abilities are quite inept. It is useless for Christians to attempt to reasonably prove that Jesus rose from the dead unless they can "also" reasonably prove that God is good. If Buddha rose from the dead, would that automatically prove that he was good? Of course not.

What do you think of James Holding's estimate of from 100,000 - 250,000 Christians by 70 A.D.? He said that there had to be that many Christians in order to get the Romans' attention. Do you believe that Christians did get the Romans' attention to any great extent by 70 A.D.? If so, where is your evidence?

In 'The Rise of Christianity,' Rodney Stark said:

“Moreover, the fruits of this faith were not limited to the realm of the spirit. Christianity offered much to the flesh as well. It was not simply the promise of salvation that motivated Christians, but the fact that they were greatly rewarded here and now for belonging. Thus while membership was expensive, it was, in fact, a bargain. That is, because the church asked much of its members, it was thereby possessed of the resources to ‘give’ much. For example, because Christians were expected to aid the less fortunate, many of them received such aid, and all could feel greater security against bad times. Because they were asked to nurse the sick and dying, many of them received such nursing. Because they were asked to love others, they in turn were loved. And if Christians were required to observe a far more restrictive moral code than that observed by pagans, Christians – especially women – enjoyed a far more secure family life.�

“The dynamics of stigma and sacrifice have the following direct and formal consequences (Iannaccone 1992). First: ‘By demanding higher levels of stigma and sacrifice, religious groups induce higher average levels of member commitment and participation.’ Second: ‘By demanding higher levels of stigma and sacrifice, religious groups are able to generate greater material, social, and religious benefits for their members.’�

In contrast to what Stark said about benefits in the here and now, Holding has said that Christianity made proimises about "the sweet bye and bye." What is your opinion on this matter?

By the way, would you like to debate the Tyre prophecy or any other prophecy? If so, just start a new thread and get ready for some embarrassment.

CJD

As if I give a rat's ass about your personal 'testimony' regarding your non-belief. Give me a break. I'm here to discuss text and context, not apologetics.

Take yourself less seriously,

CJD

CJD

I also felt the need to point this out for the Cynic. He wrote, And then he wrote, Where do you get that stuff at if not from the text? This is just one example, of course. Everyone's post here is rife with biblical allusions, and, dare I say, they are worth challenging — whatever the 'topic' of the thread is.

Best,

CJD

Johnny Skeptic

What do you mean by text and context? Is it your position that the nature of God is not an important topic, and that the texts reasonably prove that God is good? The claim that God is good (a completely uncorroborated claim I might add) is in fact the very foundation of the entire New Testament. As I showed, even if Jesus did rise from the dead, that is not an argument since there are still many unanswered questions about the nature of God. There is no logical correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead and goodness.

In the NIV, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." The verses cite “tangible� evidence of Jesus’ power.

More “tangible� evidence comes from Acts 14:3 and Matthew 14:14. Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.� Matthew 14:14 says "When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick."

We need compassion in tangible ways today just as much as people did back then. Where is tangible evidence of God's power and compassion in tangible ways today? An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are not distributed equitably, and that they are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 1) God used to be compassionate in noticeably tangible ways but is not interested in being compassionate in noticeably tangible ways today, or that 2) he never was compassionate in noticeably tangible ways, or that 3) he does not exist.

Regarding miracle healings, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to believe that it was any different back then.

Regarding the feeding of the 5,000, which is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Christians have some problems. Consider the following:

1 - The texts claim that the disciples were aware of the miracle, but no mention is made that the crowd was aware of the miracle.

2 - The anonymous Gospel writers did not claim that they personally witnessed the miracle.

3 - The Gospel writers did not reveal their source(s), which might very well have been third hand or fourth hand.

4 - There is no evidence when the claim was first made.

5 - There is no evidence that the claim was widely accepted.

My arguments are irrefutable and you know it. In addition, you cannot produce any evidence at all that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin and never sinned. Even if those claims were lies, as long as ultimately you get to enjoy a comfortable eternal life, you couldn't care less. Isn't that right?

Johnny Skeptic

Not a chance, at least as far as fundamentalist Christians are concerned, and they are the only Christians that I am interested in debating. First of all, discernment WAS NOT an issue back then since Jesus and the disciples supposedly provided noticeably TANGIBLE evidence of God's power. Second of all, fundamentalist Christians believe that the book of Revelation tells about a noticeably TANGIBLE comfortable eternal life.

Revelation 21:4 says "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Fundamentalist Christians take the verse literally, and the need for discernment is by no means indicated. The Methodist Church is for the most part a liberal Christian Church. My attorney and his secretary are Methodists. I just spoke with the secretary by telephone an asked her if she believed that Revelation 21:4 means that Christians will on day enjoy a tangible, comfortable eternal life. She said yes, and she was surprised that any Christian would believe differently.

Virtually all fundamentalist Christians believe that it won't take any discernment at all to know that they have received a tangible, visible, enjoyable, comfortable eternal life. In addition, I have no doubt whatsoever that even the majority of liberal Christians believe the same thing. If you dispute this, I will be happy to call the headquarters of the United Methodist Church and the Episcopal Church and provide you with the proof. In addition, if you wish, I will be happy to contact some pastors of liberal Christian churches in my local area and ask them for their own opinions on this matter.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to CJD: What do you think of James Holding? Who are your favorite Christian authors?

Johnny Skeptic

Why should anyone blame the majority? Micah 5:2 says that someone would come from Bethlehem Ephratah who would be ruler in Israel. Jesus did not become ruler in Israel. In addition, there is no evidence at all that Jesus was the suffering servant mentioned in Isaiah chapter 53.

Now will you please tell us what the minority expected. This should be fun.

What do you think of James Holding? Who are your favorite Christian authors?

Johnny Skeptic

I don’t need any evidence. I did not assert that miracles “did not� occur, but the Bible asserts that miracles “did� occur. For purposes of these discussions, it is not my position that the miracles “did not� occur, but rather that there is not sufficient evidence for anyone conclude that they “did� occur.

Rubbish. The Bible depends lock, stock and barrell upon claims of the supernatural. Paul basically said that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, which was a miracle claim, nothing else matters.

What eyewitnesses? What miracles?

How were the miracles verifiable in “any� sense of the word?

What is the world are you talking about? All that is necessary is for you to produce credible evidence that miracles “did� occur, so do it. If miracles did not occur, then Christianity is a false religion.

Then please tell us what the minority expected and got.

It is a fact that there is no evidence at all that Jesus did for our sins. The only proof of that would be the return of Jesus.

Regarding the 1st century, what masses?

Well-said, Diogenes. The Old Testament DOES NOT clearly point the Jesus described in the New Testament, and there IS NOT any evidence at all that Jesus fulfilled even one single Old Testament prophecy that Christians claim are messianic prophecies.

Dargo

Followers of new religions seldom bother to verify what their clergy tells them even when doing so would require little effort, so why should it be unlikely that early Christians would have failed to verify Paul's claims?

L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the church of Scientolgy, claimed to be a highly decorated sailor during WWII. He said he suffered from crippling injuries near the end of the war but used the powers of Scientology to heal himself. He claimed his navy record was proof of this miraculous recovery.

His official navy record tells a different story. The only medals he ever received were warm body medals that anyone in uniform at the time would have been given. He was never wounded in combat, but was hospitalized for a severe ulcer near the end of the war.

Any Scientologist could obtain a copy of his record for a nominal fee, but most of them will never bother to do so. Even if they were aware of this discrepency, they would probably assume that the government was lying and had altered Hubbard's original record.

What makes Christians think that the original members of their faith would have been any different? Verifying the gospel claims would have been difficult prior to the Jewish revolt and nearly impossible after that.

Suppose some Christians in the year 80 located a now elderly but still sharp man who had been a Roman soldier who performed executions during the early to mid 30s in Jerusalem. He said he remembered crucifying several would be Messiahs. Some of them might have been named Yeshua, a fairly common name among Jews. However, he was quite certain that none of them ever rose from the dead. He certainly didn't see any of the fantastic events that Mathew claimed happened during Jesus's crucifiction. Would these Christians have admitted that their beliefs were a lie, or acted like Scientolgists and just assumed the witness was either crazy or lying?